From: "Arvind Narayanan" arvindn@meenakshi.cs.iitm.ernet.in
<..snip..>
Another thing I noticed is that many (most?) of the sites violating GFDL don't know about it until we tell them about it. This is easily preventable and shouldn't be happening! I want to suggest a couple of things to ensure this:
- that we change the "From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" line. As we
know very well when people see "free" they think gratis, not libre. I suggest we make it "From wikipedia, the open-content encyclopedia" with the word open-content linking to the copyrights page.
- at the bottom of each article we should remind people about their
_obligations_ in copying it. Something along the lines of "if you wish to redistribute this article you must link back to this page and release it under the GFDL. See <here> for details" or something like that.
These are both good suggestions, it is more accurate to say "open content" than free (implying PD) and the link back is giving someone an easy way to comply with the GFDL, and very specific directions on how to do it.
IMHO we should also be more vigorous in pursuing violators. Why are people saying this is antithetical to sharing? We are preventing them from *putting restrictions* on our free articles. Writing a legal notice is costly, that's a valid point. But we'll have to do it sometime, haven't we? Otherwise we lose credibility. And since we (presumably) have to write a template letter only once, the cost is amortized. I hope we never actually need to go to court. IANAL, of course.
Actually the notice does not have be drafted by a lawyer and it can be sent by email. It just has to be done by someone who can certify that the content is protected by copyright. You basically just have to follow the requirements of the law. It is not that complicated, most corporations do it through lawyers but individuals can do it too without legal help.
Here is a database of these C&D takedown notices: http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi
Of course the question of sending out these notices needs to be vetted by Wikimedia as it would involve some "corporate" action as it would be invoking the name of Wikimedia.
Alex756